Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-18

ace Chiffon refer2 l would suggest that
before you base any more arguments
upon these comparative statistics, that
you ascertain whether Maine statistics
cover wider ground and larger range of
offenses than the ones compared with it..
Suppose that one state reports only felo-
MES and the other all the cases before
justices cOurts-or suppose one reports
all "drunksh and the other only the
'ragamuffin" cases-or suppose one has
q better system of statistics and works it
better, what then becomes Of your argu-
ment based upon the inVidious compar-
ison2
Had you not better look little deeper
into this matter, and go little behind
the statistical curtains
My dear general, allow me to make q
comparison. Suppose we compare your
letter to Mr.. Gibbs with your message to
the Legislature. The one is acknoWl-
edged by all men to be mastery docu-
ment of state craft, surprisingly strong
and wise. The other, mean the Gibbs
letter, will generally be reckoned by the
same judges, as the Veriest twsddle Of q
demsgogue. 1t is light as gossamer and
as free from the cream Of argument as
blue, skinned milk from poor cow.
/
upon what data, authentic and reliable,
you base your conclusion that the sup
preston of the liquor traffic will not ap-
preciably reduce crime and the expense
of prosecuting crime?
Occupying the position you do with the
opportunities of information at hand,
your statement about the workings of
Texas laws would be entitled to credit
more than the immature utterances of
stranger. This being true, has it not
occurred to you thst the carefully revised
statements of the governors of prohihI-
ton states, as embodied in their mes
sages, and as disclosing the workings Of
law in their states, furnish more reliable
and assuring data than any unripe state
ment to the contrary on your part?
Do you know more about Maine than
it's Governor? Are you better posted in
Kansas affairs than Governor Martin? Is
it fair presumption that Governor
| Larrabee of Iowa would gain wisdom IN
the criminal statistics of his own state,
by paying visit to the Executive Mansion
in Austin?
Are you in position to know more Of
crime and it's costs in Rhode Island than
It's chief of police? The kind of talk that you
now talk is like the talk of Governor Mar
tin of Kansas before prohibition Wkstried.
In his biennial message of this year, 1887,
he talks quite differently. IHeychanging
| gubernatOrial civilities would it not be
well for you to exchange messages?
t1s, If did not think you would regard it
aEimpertinent l would be pleased to call
yours attention to some things the public
Officials, of prohibition etates have placed
on record. The testimony of governors,
Judges, attorneys, police chiefs, mer-
chants andt3n1ecbanics. If human testi-
mOny can estaa4sh any earthly PROPOSE
ton, this evidence will cCnclusively show
your statement toee q groundless assump-
ton. ;#
Your reference to the revenue reports
and the Conclusions arrived at from them
indicate, if you will excusetbe statement,
how little you have reaElgstudied the
subject and how ill-preparedsF you are to
speak dOgmatically concerning1It, It is
tnOthing to the United States hoWmany
4 people pay for revenue license. 1t is
good for one year wnen paid for and is
counted one, and so goes into the reports.
The United States never stops to in
quire what becomes Of the man until the
next pay day. But allow me to show
your eXcellenCy that the number of these
licenses issued in prohibition states prove
nothing as to the amount Of,liquOr sold,
though they may exceed the number
issued before prohibition laws became
operative.
l. In one town in Kansas where twenty
one permits were granted and paid for
and included in the United States
revenue reports, nineteen Of these liquor
sellers were in the jail for violating the
law, the others skipped the country, and
! the town did not have an open gr0g-shOp
during the year, though the United States
revenue reports would indicate twenty
one.
2. In the city Of Topeka at one place of
business, seven men in rapid succession
paid each for such a permit, each permit
being reported in the United States reve-
nue. reports, though in seven weeks time
all these sellers were in turn suppressed
| by the indicators of violated law. Had
| there been no prohibition law there would
have been only one license for this one
place of business. But under prohibit
| tory law the licenses Increased seven-fOld
and Yet there was no saloon and no one
of the seven operated but few days.
Now, here are seven licenses under pro-
hibition against one before prohibition,
and the one before prohibition sold a
tnousand-1oI0 more liquor tnan the seven
| after prohibition, because the seven were
one by one suppressed in few days.
3. It is fact, as well established es
that you are Governor, that when the
man paying the license does escape sup
preston, he yet, on account Of the clan
destine methods necessary to evade law,
sells not 1.-THE of the amount that ne
did when he ran an open saloon.
So that you see that United States
revenue reports prove nothing as to
amounts sold. They only prove that
the federal government did not bother
him, and hinder his sales. The
states case against him is another
matter. How simple then is your ques-
ton: "Will any candid and fair man
contend that this liquor was not consumed
by the people?"
WHAT liquor, my dear Governor, what
liquor? The United States which re-
ceiVed that money did not guarantee q
market, did not guarantee against
state suppression. 1t merely guaran-
teed against Interference by the federal
government. II you'll have talk with
old Anheuser Busch and the president of
the Liquor Dealers National Protective
Association, they will explain this little
70 -